Trends in Urethral Suspension With Robotic Prostatectomy Procedures Following Medicare Payment Policy Changes
Authors: Jonathan Li, Dattatraya Patil, Benjamin J. Davies, Christopher P. Filson
Journal: JAMA Network Open (2022)

Importance In 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services cut payments for robotic prostatectomy performed for Medicare beneficiaries. Although regulations mandate that billing for urethral suspension is only acceptable for preexisting urinary incontinence, reductions in reimbursement may incentivize billing for the use of this procedure in other scenarios. Objective To assess trends and geographic variations in payments for urethral suspension with robotic prostatectomy in the context of Medicare payment policy. Design, Setting, and Participants This US population-based retrospective cohort study analyzed data from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters and Medicare Supplemental Database for men with employer-based insurance (primary commercial or Medicare supplemental coverage) who underwent robotic prostatectomy ( Current Procedural Terminology [ CPT ] code 55866) between 2009 and 2019. Exposures Time period and metropolitan statistical area of patient residence. Main Outcomes and Measures Payment for urethral suspension ( CPT code 51990) with robotic prostatectomy. Results We identified 87 774 men with prostate cancer treated with robotic prostatectomy; 3352 (3.8%) had undergone urethral suspension. The mean (SD) patient age was 59.7 (6.5) years; 16 870 patients (19.2%) had Medicare supplemental coverage. From 2015 to 2016, median payments for robotic prostatectomy changed by −$358 (−17.0%) for Medicare beneficiaries vs −$9 (0%) for commercially insured patients. With urethral suspension vs without, median (IQR) episode payments for robotic prostatectomy were higher for commercially insured men ($3678 [$3090-$4503] vs $3322 [$2601-$4306]) and Medicare beneficiaries ($2927 [$2450-$3909] vs $2379 [$2014-$3512]). Compared with men treated between 2013 and 2015, those treated between 2016 and 2017 were twice as likely to undergo urethral suspension (8.5% vs 4.1%; odds ratio, 2.17 [95% CI, 1.96-2.38]). The proportion of patients who underwent urethral suspension was stable for 2018 to 2019 and 2016 to 2017 (8.5% vs 9.0%; odds ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.96-1.18]). From 2015 to 2019, the proportion of patients who underwent urethral suspension was highest in Charleston, South Carolina (92.0%), Knoxville, Tennessee (66.0%), and Columbia, South Carolina (58.0%). These regions neighbored high-volume areas without patients who underwent prostatectomy with urethral suspension (eg, 146 patients in Greenville, South Carolina, and 173 in Nashville, Tennessee). Conclusions and Relevance In this study, urethral suspension was associated with increased costs for patients with both commercial insurance and Medicare. Patients treated between 2016 and 2017 were more likely than those treated between 2013 and 2015 to undergo this procedure. Geographic variation in use exceeded what was expected for the preexisting condition for which billing is permitted for Medicare beneficiaries. Policy statements from professional societies highlighting appropriate billing for urethral suspension may have tempered, but not reversed, the broad adoption of this procedure.